Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))
>>If so, then how does that make sense for a prehistoric Semitic loan? HowWell, I was thinking c.6000-5000 BCE, so I guess we're on the same
>>old do you think Proto-Semitic is?
> I have no idea. I suspect somewhat older than PIE.
wavelength. However, you mentioned East Semitic and I'm not understanding
how that works. I would have thought that East Semitic wasn't so far east
back in Neolithic. Unless you're saying that it was more north at the
time, say, in Western Anatolia... :)
> Another thing about Bomhard: how come there are no context-sensitiveIn defense of Bomhard, I still think did a better job than
> palatalisations in his rules over several millenia, when Slavic alone
> had three or four?
anything else I've come across from the older works of IS or
I don't expect him to find all the rules at once but I do
think that proper analysis of each individual language family
is lacking in Nostratic. It's a large task to get very
familiar and educated on more than one proto-language afterall.
There's just so much to read. I'm still learning about crazy
things in IE that throw me for a theoretical loop.
> BTW Holger Pedersen has the same idea of breaking up all PIEBut not for IE where *deiwo- or *dyeu- is reconstructed. These
> consonant clusters in a short remark about future trends (using
> <deus> and <divus>, supposedly from *däjäwä-) in his History of
> Linguistics in the 19th century. Cuny uses it too. (Written as
syllabics can only be reconstructed into a pre-IE stage.